Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds • Hacker News Board

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#91

Post by CodeMage » Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 5:19 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #82

CodeMage wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry if my question is naive, but it's been bothering me for a while now: why doesn't anyone consider the lobbying itself to be the root problem? I'm not from the US, so I haven't grown up with that system and to me it sounds like legalized corruption. The only reason I can come up with for allowing lobbying is the same reason why people want to legalize drugs: illegal corruption would be a lot worse than legali…

For most people it's: "Lobbying is bad when it's for things I don't like." The ability to petition the government was so important to the Founders that they wrote it into the First Amendment. (Madison, among others, was hostile to the Bill Of Rights because he thought those were things that were obviously not allowed to government, and that delineating them would cause people to think that the Constitution was a list…

Again, I seem to be missing something. Isn't there a great deal of difference between "petitioning the government" and "paying the government"?

Here's an excerpt from briandear's comment about lobbying:

We all know who Hollywood gives the majority of their money to, and the people that receive it do their bidding. Hollywood isn't the problem any more than Google or Facebook's lobbies are the problem.

It look pretty clear to me that there is some sort of mechanism in United States whereby people/organizations pay money to steer the government. That's what I was inquiring about.

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#92

Post by danielweber » Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 5:30 PM UTC

CodeMage wrote: post #91

danielweber wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For most people it's: "Lobbying is bad when it's for things I don't like." The ability to petition the government was so important to the Founders that they wrote it into the First Amendment. (Madison, among others, was hostile to the Bill Of Rights because he thought those were things that were obviously not allowed to government, and that delineating them would cause people to think that the Constitution was a list…

Again, I seem to be missing something. Isn't there a great deal of difference between "petitioning the government" and "paying the government"? Here's an excerpt from briandear's comment about lobbying: We all know who Hollywood gives the majority of their money to, and the people that receive it do their bidding. Hollywood isn't the problem any more than Google or Facebook's lobbies are the problem. It look pretty c…

Petitioning the government is lobbying the government. That's what lobbying is, no more or no less.

I don't speak for the other commenter and wouldn't think to explain his comment. However, when people speak about the government being bought, they generally mean one of three things, correctly or not:

1. Lobbying. Someone spends a lot of money to hire people with connections who can catch the ear of government.

2. Campaign donations. You can donate money directly to someone's campaign, or even exercise your free speech rights yourself to endorse or criticize someone's campaign.

3. Simple bribery. This is when you find a Senator with a few hundred thousand dollars of cash in his freezer.

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#93

Post by philwelch » Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 5:37 PM UTC

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #89

rvschuilenburg wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what i've always understood, if he is transported in a car together with a diplomat, the UK police are still not allowed to stop them. So he himself doesn't have to be a diplomat.

The Ecuadorian embassy isn't a huge building with it's own garage, it's a flat on the first floor. If you can get a car in to a first floor flat you may have a plan. Even if that weren't the case he's got to get out of the car to get into the plane at which point he's once again on British soil and can be arrested. Plus really, how much effort at the Ecuadorian government going to go to to piss off the British, Ameri…

So he jumps out of the window of the embassy into an open car beside an Ecuadorian diplomat, which is then driven into the back of an Ecuadorian cargo plane which then takes off for Ecuador. Realistic? No, but I'm sure the idea fits in just fine with Julian Assange's inflated self-image.

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#94

Post by ktizo » Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 5:55 PM UTC

cjensen wrote: post #90

ktizo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, actually he has precedent in his favour. CFTC v. Walsh: District Court Releases Funds Frozen in Civil Case to Pay for Attorney in Parallel Criminal Case: http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/comment-cftc-v-wal... Also, how else do you get to have funds released other than through petition? And he has already submitted to the justice system, otherwise he wouldn't be turning up in court.

I don't disagree with what you said. But the topic was in regard to someone refusing to submit to justice unless their conditions were met. The point is, he must submit to the court before the court can grant his petition.

He hasn't refused, he is fighting extradition in court. How can he have refused to submit to justice if he is taking part in court proceedings? Submitting to justice is not the same as doing whatever you are told, at least not since the establishment of habeas corpus as a standard.

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#95

Post by cjensen » Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 10:25 PM UTC

ktizo wrote: post #94

cjensen wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with what you said. But the topic was in regard to someone refusing to submit to justice unless their conditions were met. The point is, he must submit to the court before the court can grant his petition.

He hasn't refused, he is fighting extradition in court. How can he have refused to submit to justice if he is taking part in court proceedings? Submitting to justice is not the same as doing whatever you are told, at least not since the establishment of habeas corpus as a standard.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the funds are frozen by the US, not NZ. "Submitting to Justice" does not mean "Submit to Prosecutor." It means making yourself available to the Court for the purpose of defending yourself at risk of being found guilty and punished.

US Courts are not going to consider the petitions of someone who won't show up to Court. For example, Roman Polanski wishes to petition the US Courts regarding his Criminal Case. The US Courts correctly refuse to hear those petitions so long as Polanski is hiding from the Court.

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#96

Post by jlgreco » Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 2:00 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #88

NonEUCitizen wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ALLEGEDLY

If you are saying the government has not yet proved it in a court of law -- as it is required to do -- you are correct. If you are saying that Dotcom wasn't explicitly aware of copyrighted materials being uploaded, didn't know people were uploading copyright materials, and didn't set up reward programs for people who uploaded the most pirated materials, then you are very naive.

The issue is that people are justifying the US's improper handling of the case by saying that he is guilty.

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#97

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 2:01 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #88

NonEUCitizen wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ALLEGEDLY

If you are saying the government has not yet proved it in a court of law -- as it is required to do -- you are correct. If you are saying that Dotcom wasn't explicitly aware of copyrighted materials being uploaded, didn't know people were uploading copyright materials, and didn't set up reward programs for people who uploaded the most pirated materials, then you are very naive.

[deleted]

Re: Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

#98

Post by ktizo » Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 5:22 PM UTC

cjensen wrote: post #95

ktizo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He hasn't refused, he is fighting extradition in court. How can he have refused to submit to justice if he is taking part in court proceedings? Submitting to justice is not the same as doing whatever you are told, at least not since the establishment of habeas corpus as a standard.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the funds are frozen by the US, not NZ. "Submitting to Justice" does not mean "Submit to Prosecutor." It means making yourself available to the Court for the purpose of defending yourself at risk of being found guilty and punished. US Courts are not going to consider the petitions of someone who won't show up to Court. For example, Roman Polanski wishes to petition the US Courts regarding…

The funds are seized and frozen by Hong Kong and New Zealand at the request of the US authorities, which is how he has already managed to get some of it back from the New Zealand authorites.